Dudeman112

>there's no scientific way to disprove any of these theories

And yet probability theory has a lot to say about the likelihood of theories and epistemology has come a long way in the last century

Not every likely (or unlikely) hypothesis is as likely (or unlikely) as each other

Makes you wonder what exactly those managers are for if everyone is meant to self manage their own workload anyway

The problem with ternaries is people getting so excited about it they build some one line monstrosities that really should be broken down into more lines

And for what's not a monstrosity to begin with... It's not a monstrosity to begin with, you ain't gaining much

>Once we actually have AI we're going to need something else to call it

You mean Artificial General Intelligence? ;)

On a more serious note, it is a shame that we ended up calling it AI instead of something innocuous like "pattern matching code". There's so much bullshit and misunderstanding that wouldn't be there if we had named it something less impressive

I for one am rather fond of just calling it "one man IT department" or a "generalist" (for whatever reason it looks like this has become a dirty word lately)

>Do you think that humans universally or even have historically interpreted physicalism as a simpler theory than a non-materialist one?

To be fair with humans, the simpler theory is almost always "my neighbour is a witch, she did it"

Hand waving complexity as that thing you feel in your gut instead of having some proper definition for it was and still is the standard human experience

I'm glad you're not my manager and that I can choose not to work for managers like you

To be fair, tractors don't go on about how smart they are

>toxic culture around sports

I was rather fond of practicing team sports as a kid, but I found the culture off putting for the same reasons

Some people just can't behave, adults weren't even much better than your regular kid

Yes, but doing it naturally and unconsciously makes it not evil

There can be no public sanity regarding anything that was done by people in the wrong side of fresh (historical) memory

>What makes this possible for the Christian believer is the faith/knowledge that one’s sins have already _been_ absolved, so Heaven has already effectively been attained

I have yet to meet a Christian believer IRL who has actual faith that their sins have already been absolved so heaven has already effectively been attained

Maybe that's more common in other corners of the world? I haven't met many people who actually act as if they know they'll be saved as opposed to hoping they'll be saved

>Fundamental truths don't have to be useful period, let alone be useful in every situation.

They have to if the fundamental truth pertains to the One True mental state one should achieve

I probably should have used more qualifiers to make the context explicit...

Good thing it wasn't analysis paralysis. The conclusion of the analysis was "the question is badly worded" and from the way he worded his original reply it seems like he understood what they were aiming for

That is an (small) indication of smart

Sounds to me like just an oversight. If what experience I have with public institutions is worth anything, it just didn't occur to the people who designed the question that the wording was shit and that to arrive at the intended answer you have to be loose with the meaning of words. That does not reflect well on American po-pos

Pointing out "the question is wrong/invalid/badly worded" isn't analysis paralysis

Could be, of course, that they want to test how you deal with that... But I have a feeling that's beyond the point here

Yes, however people don't come up with philosophies about hijacking your whole thought process so the only thing left is listening to music

If someone is selling a fundamental truth about the universe, it better damn well work in every situation

Might want to start using "deliberate thinking" (or something like that) instead of "distinction".

Even if it's valid, "distinction" also has other meanings that might come to mind first in the same context, which can lead people to misunderstand what you are talking about. It's what happened to me

I don't think deliberate thoughts are the best tools for all circumstances. That's not my point

Actually getting rid of distinctions requires an overwriting of the non-deliberate thought processes too. You won't "handle" the person shouting at you or the bear attacking you more effectively, you won't handle anything at all. You'll just be the cognitive equivalent of a rock, but in human flesh

You seem to be using "distinctions" as a synonym for deliberate thought (I could be wrong, of course)

I went hiking yesterday. I really, really wouldn't have liked if someone nagged me when resting while peacefully gazing over the valley

I find it amusing how for some people the thought that someone might enjoy just being alone a while is some unthinkable Lovecraftian madness

>We put distinctions on the world because we think it's necessary to be able to actually live here

You'll find that living on the world without distinctions in some places will get you shot or eaten by wildlife. Which does make your life in the world a wee shorter, yes... Although at that point I guess someone truly enlightened wouldn't mind it

>Follow the math where your instincts fail you

I think that's his point. Your instincts fail you all the time when studying stuff smaller than atoms

Most people don't have a gut feeling for overriding their instincts in favour of math. In fact, when you read some behavioural sciences you'll notice that overriding math with your instincts is the norm

Maybe if we were overwhelmed by all the bad things that we should be doing something about it would eventually lead us to a point where we would be doing something instead of just living our lives doing nothing (for the most part)?

If we are already talking about changing the human cognition, might as well add an ability to function while being aware of the issues

>Do these all carry the same weight to you?

Yes. Alas, we humans ( including myself ) are quite good at not feeling responsible if the issue isn't staring us in the face

>In fact we could simplify your statement further; The ends always justify the means., and so endorsing all terrorism and war, even genocide; whenever the ends is enough peace to make a net positive

On the other hand, you seem to be arguing that the means justify the end. So you'd let all the terrorism and war, even genocide, go ahead if it took not having to stain your hands to stop it

On the killing 1 person to save 5 lives example, it seems like your answer is "I wouldn't do it", which for the people actually being killed is equivalent to killing 5 people to save 1 person ( but what really matters is that you weren't the one personally killing the 5 people )

>Being slightly at fault for someones death is basically a permanent state of affairs, whereas actively killing someone is something few people would be willing to do. It definitely makes a difference

It only makes a difference in the eyes of the beholder, not for those actually dying

Not thinking too hard about reality because reality is nasty is something of a huge bug in the human cognition. Trying hard to not know anything is even desirable from that point of view: it's not neglect if you never bothered getting to a state where you are capable of being responsible for anything

I'm fairly sure you're preaching to the choir here

Worrying about making it work in mobile is an external requirement that arises due to the world we live in, not because of funsies. If someone could say "fuck supporting the shitty options" without bleeding a metric-fuck-ton of money for it, they would

You'll find that most decisions aren't made as a result of deliberate thought

As far as I have seen people mainly pop kids because they want to (the same way people who are hungry want food regardless of any knowledge about nutrition), because they want their kids to deal with their old age crap instead of dealing with it on their own, or because it's the usual path laid by the environment

If you don't wanna drink soda then just don't drink it

And sometimes people are actual morons

Not always, but definitely something to keep in mind when dealing with popularity metrics

>All planning is a waste if you don't even know where the speed humps will lie.

If that's the place where someone is, they should be conferring with someone else who knows something instead of trying to fly solo

Blindly going through problem spaces is how you waste your life taking wrong approaches

The good people are the ones who don't have to stay in a hot kitchen if they don't want to

I wonder... will the people who hired deadwood get shafted, or will they consider how to improve their hiring process? (ha. ha. ha.)

I agree on it being a problematic word

As far as I am concerned, if one actually cares about the debate they should just replace "mature" for what they think it means or implies for the behaviour of the individual

Replacing the symbol for a definition is quite handy. People get all defensive over being called privileged, but change "privileged" for "having good circumstances" ( or similar ) and they don't feel called out for it despite having the same meaning

IMO it's something of a shame how much the human cognition is crap at that kind of stuff